When Did It Become a Baby?

[anotherneil]

The force that enables and sustains life.

Regards Tony

Ah, ok; thanks. My understanding is that in a religious context, only human beings have souls (and they can be sold).

In this case, based on what you're saying, any organisms, such as plants and animals - even bacteria, have souls.

BTW, do you have any scientific literature references for your explanation?

 

[anotherneil]

Termination of pregnancy is exactly that. It is termed “abortion”, and whilst this is a misnomer, any “termination” is to end the pregnancy.

Inducing delivery is not always the same as a “termination of pregnancy”.




When a fetus is delivered prematurely, if there is a chance for life then the neonate is admitted under the intensive care unit, hence NICU.

Not all neonates are premature, some are born at term but face health problems that require admission.

There is no such scenario as working for an “abortionist”, since such a term has no meaning in any health care setting.

Just because the term "abortionist" has no meaning in any health care setting, that doesn't mean that there is no such scenario as working for one. They exist regardless and they have staff who work for them.

 

[Aupmanyav]

When did it become a baby?

The day/night it was conceived, when Ovum met the first spermatozoa. The rest 200-300 million do not count.

 

[GoodAttention]

Just because the term "abortionist" has no meaning in any health care setting, that doesn't mean that there is no such scenario as working for one.

Good luck getting a health care professional, or even the Texas legal system, to refer to any person as an “abortionist”.

They exist regardless and they have staff who work for them.

I can refer to you derogatorily and also say you exist.

 

[anotherneil]

Good luck getting a health care professional, or even the Texas legal system, to refer to any person as an “abortionist”.

I suspect you may be correct, but I'm not sure why. I can understand the concept of someone who's politically opposed to abortion being a right potentially thinking of the word "abortionist" as derogatory (I think that's your point, about "abortionist" being a derogatory term - right?), and I don't know if it's your premise that someone who's politically in favor of abortion being a right also considers it a derogatory term, but the possibility is interesting.

Who are you saying would find it derogatory, an abortion rights supporter, an abortion rights opposer, or both?

If someone supports abortion rights, I don't get why they would see the word "abortionist" as derogatory; I would think that if I were an abortion rights supporter, I would - for the sake of consistency - consider the word as not derogatory and something that abortionists would proudly use to refer to themselves.

In any case, it is in fact a word - derogatory or not.

I can refer to you derogatorily and also say you exist.

Yeah, because that would be consistent with the socialist and authoritarian selective anarchism way of thinking of supporting abortion rights, that anyone who doesn't align with their mindset isn't human, either, and deserves to be destroyed like a fetus in an abortion.

 

[GoodAttention]

I suspect you may be correct, but I'm not sure why. I can understand the concept of someone who's politically opposed to abortion being a right potentially thinking of the word "abortionist" as derogatory (I think that's your point, about "abortionist" being a derogatory term - right?), and I don't know if it's your premise that someone who's politically in favor of abortion being a right also considers it a derogatory term, but the possibility is interesting.

Who are you saying would find it derogatory, an abortion rights supporter, an abortion rights opposer, or both?

Any and all health care professionals.

If someone supports abortion rights, I don't get why they would see the word "abortionist" as derogatory; I would think that if I were an abortion rights supporter, I would - for the sake of consistency - consider the word as not derogatory and something that abortionists would proudly use to refer to themselves.

In any case, it is in fact a word - derogatory or not.

I support alcohol to be accessible, but I don't describe a person who sells it an "imbimberer", "intoxicator", or 'fetal alcohol syndrome enabler".

Abortionist is not a word, term, or description that has any universal consensus.

If there was a Christians/WASP/white/cracker equivalent to the urban dictionary then it could be in that.

Yeah, because that would be consistent with the socialist and authoritarian selective anarchism way of thinking of supporting abortion rights, that anyone who doesn't align with their mindset isn't human, either, and deserves to be destroyed like a fetus in an abortion.

So we agree name calling does no one any favors.

 

[Colt]

2.5M views · 128K reactions | Baby en caul at cesarean birth | !!!! Baby in the water sac. Stunning! A birth where the baby is born in the water sac is called en caul, this is a cesarean en caul birth. | By Delta Strength Doula | Facebook

!!!! Baby in the water sac. Stunning! A birth where the baby is born in the water sac is called en caul, this is a cesarean en caul birth.

www.facebook.com

The question comes from the video

THIS ISN’T A QUESTION ABOUT ABORTION… IT IS A QUESTION ON WHAT YOU THINK BECAUSE OF A C-SECTION.

It was a baby human life at conception before we started lying to ourselves to justify killing it.

 

[anotherneil]

Any and all health care professionals.

Are you assuming that everyone or anyone in the health care profession condones what abortionists or "abortion providers" are doing?

I support alcohol to be accessible, but I don't describe a person who sells it an "imbimberer", "intoxicator", or 'fetal alcohol syndrome enabler".

That's your choice.

Abortionist is not a word, term, or description that has any universal consensus.

It doesn't really matter; what matters is the action, the fact that the life of a human being is being ripped apart and its life is being snuffed out.

If there was a Christians/WASP/white/cracker equivalent to the urban dictionary then it could be in that.

Is this a major Freudian faux pas on your part? Well, whatever the case is, this looks like an example the sort of racist, bigoted, stereotypical mindset by a pro-abortion Leftist being said aloud.

Are you a Margaret Sanger fan?

I suppose this was an attempt to take some sort of swipe at me; unfortunately for you, I'm non-religious (and I mean for real not religious, as in I'm not one of these evangelicals or fundamentalist Christians who like to pretend and deceive people into thinking that they're not religious), I was raised Roman Catholic, and I'm hispanic.

So we agree name calling does no one any favors.

No, I think name calling can do favors for the one being subjected to name calling when it's a flat out false label, is being used as an ad hom attack, etc. & it just shows that the one doing the name calling is failing the debate.

When a word like "abortionist" is condemned as being derogatory, the only reason I can see for such a condemnation is because subconsciously the one doing the condemning of the word considers or recognizes that what they do to be wrong.

 

[Kenny]

I just played the video again… but this time a warning popped up:

I know it wasn’t violent… I guess it could be labelled graphic since it is real-time and real-life..

Very graphic:

 

[GoodAttention]

Are you assuming that everyone or anyone in the health care profession condones what abortionists or "abortion providers" are doing?

I’m talking about the label “abortionist”, and as per my point in comment #64 which you “supposed” would be correct. It is not a term that has any meaning within health care, nor does it have any legal meaning.

That's your choice.

Correct. I choose to use a label that isn’t politically or emotionally charged, unlike you.

You are making a choice to use a word that is, frankly, outright offensive.

If a health practitioner was to refer to themselves as an “abortionist” so be it, but good luck to them.

It doesn't really matter; what matters is the action, the fact that the life of a human being is being ripped apart and its life is being snuffed out.

That is not the debate we are having here.

Is this a major Freudian faux pas on your part? Well, whatever the case is, this looks like an example the sort of racist, bigoted, stereotypical mindset by a pro-abortion Leftist being said aloud.

Not at all, a faux pas indicates it was involuntary. My point is in fact a reflection of what you stand for.

Are you a Margaret Sanger fan?

Who?

I suppose this was an attempt to take some sort of swipe at me; unfortunately for you, I'm non-religious (and I mean for real not religious, as in I'm not one of these evangelicals or fundamentalist Christians who like to pretend and deceive people into thinking that they're not religious), I was raised Roman Catholic, and I'm hispanic.

Nice for you, so what?

No, I think name calling can do favors for the one being subjected to name calling when it's a flat out false label, is being used as an ad hom attack, etc. & it just shows that the one doing the name calling is failing the debate.

When a word like "abortionist" is condemned as being derogatory, the only reason I can see for such a condemnation is because subconsciously the one doing the condemning of the word considers or recognizes that what they do to be wrong.

You are wrong for all the right reasons.

As I have said “abortionist” is not a word. It is politically charged, and has no universal definition, including in legal matters.

The day it becomes a word that is recognised and clearly defined we can revisit this discussion, but until then don’t use it unless you intend to be inflammatory and derogatory.

 

[anotherneil]

I’m talking about the label “abortionist”, and as per my point in comment #64 which you “supposed” would be correct. It is not a term that has any meaning within health care,

I never claimed that it has any meaning within health care, and I'm not inclined to object to the assertion that it is not a term that has any meaning within health care, either.

nor does it have any legal meaning.

I'm not sure how this relates to this topic thread.

Correct. I choose to use a label that isn’t politically or emotionally charged, unlike you.

You're saying that the word "abortionist" is politically or emotionally charged? How are you coming up with that? It sounds like a claim you're just making up.

You are making a choice to use a word that is, frankly, outright offensive.

How is it offensive & why is it offensive? Are you just making up rules as you go along?

If a health practitioner was to refer to themselves as an “abortionist” so be it, but good luck to them.

I don't see why a health practitioner would want to.

That is not the debate we are having here.

That's an awful attempt at a dodge; go back to the drawing board and try to come up with another.

Not at all, a faux pas indicates it was involuntary. My point is in fact a reflection of what you stand for.

LOL How do you even know who I am? I'm not even going to ask you if I've been doxxed, because that wouldn't explain anything at all & if I were doxxed, then you wouldn't be saying that it relates at all to what I stand for.

Who?

Yeah, right.

Nice for you, so what?

So it's impossible for what you said to be a reflection of what I stand for.

You are wrong for all the right reasons.

If you say so.

As I have said “abortionist” is not a word.

It doesn't matter that you say this; it is a word.

It is politically charged,

Why?

and has no universal definition, including in legal matters.

There you go again bringing up the concept of legality; what does legality have to do with the thread topic?

The day it becomes a word that is recognised and clearly defined we can revisit this discussion, but until then don’t use it unless you intend to be inflammatory and derogatory.

Wow, you really are triggered by the word but won't explain why & that omission itself speaks rather loudly & clearly.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am trying to find out what people think. I am not talking about abortion.

Sure you aren't.

One person said, if I remember correctly, when they cut the umbilical cord.

From the bodily autonomy perspective, the right of the pregnant person is to not be pregnant without consent, not necessarily to an abortion. It's just that through most of a pregnancy, ending the pregnancy involves abortion.

Near full term, though, things can be different. For instance, halfway through labour, probably the most expedient way to end the pregnancy is just to complete the labour.

In your particular video, the bodily autonomy rights of the pregnant person cease to be an issue the moment that the pregnant person's body is no longer involved. As soon as that sac is removed, regardless of whether we consider what's in the sac to be a fetus or a baby, her right to not be pregnant without consent is moot, because she's no longer pregnant.

 

[Quintessence]

A "fetus" does not exclusively refer to humans.

Sure, none of those terms do. In the context of this discussion, though, we're talking about humans, yeah? Considering some of the "pro-life" crowd like to make a point of arguing about when something is human, the extra clarity seemed warranted. At all points, we are talking about a human in this discussion.

 

[Kenny]

From the bodily autonomy perspective, the right of the pregnant person is to not be pregnant without consent, not necessarily to an abortion.

this isn’t an “abortion post”. Sorry if I don’t follow your moving goal post. You certainly can discuss that with the rest of the people on this post who are. I’m not.

 

[anotherneil]

Sure, none of those terms do. In the context of this discussion, though, we're talking about humans, yeah? Considering some of the "pro-life" crowd like to make a point of arguing about when something is human, the extra clarity seemed warranted. At all points, we are talking about a human in this discussion.

Ok, so for the context of this thread, we're talking about a human fetus, not a non-human fetus; I suppose I can go along with that.

 

[GoodAttention]

I never claimed that it has any meaning within health care, and I'm not inclined to object to the assertion that it is not a term that has any meaning within health care, either.


I'm not sure how this relates to this topic thread.


You're saying that the word "abortionist" is politically or emotionally charged? How are you coming up with that? It sounds like a claim you're just making up.


How is it offensive & why is it offensive? Are you just making up rules as you go along?


I don't see why a health practitioner would want to.


That's an awful attempt at a dodge; go back to the drawing board and try to come up with another.


LOL How do you even know who I am? I'm not even going to ask you if I've been doxxed, because that wouldn't explain anything at all & if I were doxxed, then you wouldn't be saying that it relates at all to what I stand for.


Yeah, right.


So it's impossible for what you said to be a reflection of what I stand for.


If you say so.


It doesn't matter that you say this; it is a word.


Why?


There you go again bringing up the concept of legality; what does legality have to do with the thread topic?


Wow, you really are triggered by the word but won't explain why & that omission itself speaks rather loudly & clearly.

You were the one who claimed to work in healthcare and then went on to say you wouldn't work for an "abortionist".

Go read your comment #58 and then come back to me.

More than happy to be the one teaching you whatever lesson you need taught.

 

[PureX]

The fact that we have to ask means that we don’t know the answer.

And the fact that we don’t know the answer means we don’t get to tell anyone else how to deal with personal issues related to that question.

 

[Alien826]

I am trying to find out what people think. I am not talking about abortion. One person said, if I remember correctly, when they cut the umbilical cord.

I don't understand. If that's all you want, what's the point you are making? 'Fetus" and "baby" are both labels that are applied to different stages of the process we call pregnancy. In this case we see a fetus becoming a baby. There doesn't seem to be an obvious point where we can draw a line between the two terms and so what? I don't imagine that the doctors and/or nurses attending the event stop what they are doing to wonder "What should we call this?".

In short, what's the point of the thread? It has to be more than you say here.

 

[The Papist]

The fact that we have to ask means that we don’t know the answer.

And the fact that we don’t know the answer means we don’t get to tell anyone else how to deal with personal issues related to that question.

I don't buy this. If we don't know if something is murder, should we just do it anyway? If a hunter sees a form that could be a person but might just be an animal, is it okay to shoot? Of course not. I think it's unquestionably true that a ""fetus"" (a Latin word meaning "offspring/child") is a person. But even if you're uncertain, does that mean it's okay?

 

[PureX]

I don't buy this. If we don't know if something is murder, should we just do it anyway?

I don't know, should we? I guess that's a question that we will each have to answer for ourselves. There are a number of those kinds of questions in the world. You should be grateful if you never have to face one of them in your own life.

If a hunter sees a form that could be a person but might just be an animal, is it okay to shoot?

That's a call only that hunter can make. Because he's the only one that can.

Of course not.

Yeah, see, right there is where you decided to usurp the reality that God has deemed that we all must live in. And it's why no one wants to listen to you.

I think it's unquestionably true that a ""fetus"" (a Latin word meaning "offspring/child") is a person. But even if you're uncertain, does that mean it's okay?

What you think has nothing to do with anyone else.